Let's get rid of the Electoral College

I haven't said that the creation of the EC was about slavery or created to prolong slavery/appease slave states. I simply don't see how an institution that allowed states with slave populations to get more congress people than would have been the case otherwise and consequently more electoral votes was not an institution that benefited them. You yourself said that the founders intended for the EC to protect the country against majority tyranny. In doing so, they took advantage from the more populous North and gave it to the slave states. Was that not a benefit of the EC for slave states? I'm not commenting on the justness or fairness of its implementation, just that it tipped election dynamics more to the favor of slave srates than before. In 1800, it made the difference between their getting TJ who they wanted instead of Adams.

You really need to read up on the constitution, and the process of the convention. There was a separate compromise concerning the slave states, known as the three-fifths compromise, as three-fifths of the slave population--60%--were counted for purposes of determining the number of Representatives a state would send to the House. It had nothing to do with the Electoral College, and the Electoral College had nothing to do with the three-fifths compromise.

The American constitution is a relatively brief document, written clearly in plain language, and accessible to any literate citizen. There are entire libraries devoted to the constitutional convention, and very few of those books disagree in anything but minor details.

It passeth understanding why Americans remain so ignorant of the bases of their government.

At the time of the convention, the most populous state was Virginia, a slave state, and it was a neighbor of Maryland, another slave state with a very large population. At the convention, the small states banded behind the leadership of New York and New Jersey--two states with relatively small populations. You know, 230 years ago, New York was not a bustling metropolis, and Virginia was not a bedroom community for Washington, DC, which didn't even exist at the time.

But you go ahead on and rant, you're invincibly armored in your ignorance. Another internet warrior who argues because he can, and not because he knows what he's talking about.

I'd be happy to see winner-take-all done away with, but don't see any convincing example of why the disproportionate representation is itself helpful for electing a president.

So far, the few times the disproportionate representation has overridden the popular vote don't serve as great examples of why it's necessary either, the will of the people was right (by their own later reasoning at least) in 2000, and the disproportionate representation wrong.

Id like for us to head in an entirely new direction. Instead of a president or house or senate, we go with a twelve member board of randomly pulled legal citizens. Each member serves for one year and replaced with another random after serving twelve months. You alternate monthly so you get a replacement each month.

Its like a jury. If a jury system is good enough to decide life or death of a suspect they should be plenty good enough to debate givernment policies. It TRULY would be the government of the people. Rich, poor, middle class, educated, not so much random selections of the people. They get paid for the twelve months served.

You can op out like a jury. And advisory positions are available to provide information on law and current policies to help make better decisions but ultimately the twelve apointees decide through a process.

This would get rid of the need to be a millionare to obtain a high office and you would get varring opinions based on peoples life experience. You could have a minimum age requirement like 35 and older, ect.

0 Replies

perennialloner

1

Reply
Sun 20 Nov, 2016 02:29 pm

@Setanta,

I'm not arguing to argue. I'm arguing because I genuinely don't understand, which is why I used a lot of question marks after the things I stated before. You obviously know a lot about American politics, and I want to learn. How am I supposed to learn something I don't understand if I don't ask about it. I continued with my line of thinking because my confusion wasn't clarified. Not that it matters, but not everyone here is American or understands English well. I'm only recently learning about the Electoral College.

It was my understanding that the number of electors in each state is determined by the number of senators and the number of representatives in the House, which is determined by population. If the three-fifths compromise increased the number of representatives in the House for slave states, wouldn't it also have increased their number of electors? That's why I don't see how this is true: It had nothing to do with the Electoral College, and the Electoral College had nothing to do with the three-fifths compromise.

Quote:

The Convention had unanimously accepted the principle that representation in the House of Representatives would be in proportion to the relative state populations. However, since slaves could not vote, white leaders in slave states would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College.

You stated that the Electoral College was an institution responsible for the three-fifths compromise. That was false. It wasn't a question by you, it was a statement. As it happens, the three fifths compromise goes back to the Articles of Confederation in 1783, long before the Electoral College was even dreamed up. What I see you doing is demonizing the EC because you don't like the results of this election.

You stated that the Electoral College was an institution responsible for the three-fifths compromise. That was false. It wasn't a question by you, it was a statement.

I did state that. But that's not what I meant. I misspoke. The thing I've questioned from the very beginning and meant to question in that post is simply this: "there is nothing about the electoral college that worked to the advantage of the slave states." The first and last response I provided re that statement explain why I don't think it's true and neither are inaccurate, I don't think? I've also repeatedly said I'm not commenting on the fairness of the EC. It hasn't been my intention to demonize the EC. I simply saw something you said before, didn't understand it and told you why. You responded to me. I elaborated--got it wrong. I elaborated again, didn't get it wrong. Maybe I missed your point, but didn't say anything factually untrue, as far as I'm aware. You have been consistently condescending for my daring to question something you said. Though I have disagreed with you, I have not been rude to you.

Well this is interesting. I don't remember being taught anything like this in school, but then again I have forgotten most of what I did manage to pass. I had a way of memorizing for test and then forgetting it.

I see how the compromise was reached.

Quote:

Much has been said of the impropriety of representing men who have no will of their own.... They are men, though degraded to the condition of slavery. They are persons known to the municipal laws of the states which they inhabit, as well as to the laws of nature. But representation and taxation go together.... Would it be just to impose a singular burden, without conferring some adequate advantage?

— Alexander Hamilton[7]

Although from my non expert view, the southern states seemed to want to have their cake and eat it too. They considered slaves their property, not people, they owned them, they had no voice in their own lives much less in the governing of the state they lived in slavery. I can see why the northern states would resent the compromise of allowing them to benefit from owning slaves and having an unfair advantage in the federal government.

I have always hated the electorial collage. We vote for a person who will vote the way we want them too or not. They can vote however they want too. Most people think the electors have to vote the way their state did. They do not. Remind me again how we are a democracy. And yes I know we are not. We are a constitutional republic. If we were a democracy Clinton would be president by virtue of 1.5 million more votes than tRump.

0 Replies

perennialloner

1

Reply
Tue 22 Nov, 2016 10:29 am

@Setanta,

the electoral college still reinforced the injustice of the 3/5 compromise, during that time period, which worked to the benefit of slave states. I get your point that it's not an intrinsic fault of the electoral college though